D
@datenwolf @campuscodi but the „benevolent“ chief master of awesomeness said it differently in the interview:
—
They will accept no LLM-generated content, nothing paraphrased from an LLM, and nothing edited, brainstormed, or debugged by an LLM. In short: Keep AI out of it.
On the JetBrains podcast, Zig President Andrew Kelley called AI-assisted contributions "invariably garbage."
—
So perhaps it’s time to tell Donny about the actual policy…
@datenwolf @campuscodi then state that instead. There no benefit in doing it that way. Forbidding a tool to be used is stupid. Requiring human oversight is not. Curl somewhat roled back in their statement and so will zig.
@datenwolf @campuscodi then tell OP to update his hilarious „AI bad“ post to reflect that - not me.
@datenwolf @campuscodi you should read up on that. Curl does use AI to identify vulnerabilities themselves:
yes, as in singular one. Back in April 2026 Anthropic caused a lot of media noise when they concluded that their new AI model Mythos is dangerously good at finding security flaws in source code. Apparently Mythos was so good at this that Anthropic would not release this model to the public yet but instead … Continue reading Mythos finds a curl vulnerability →
daniel.haxx.se (daniel.haxx.se)
Vulnerability submission != vulnerability research.
If they would require a human in the loop before submitting vulns, that would make sense. To ban usage of AI for vulnerability research is just plain stupid. To disallow any method to find vulnerabilities is security by obscurity and should be treated as such.
@datenwolf @campuscodi „The Zig programming language has updated its code of conduct to ban LLM-generated code, vulnerability research, text-generation, and about anything AI at all“
OP said that. Banning any kind of vulnerability research is stupid. If you allow fuzzing why not allow AI based?
@campuscodi lol - a Programming language that bans vulnerability research … says it all.
@arnesemsrott Hörbuch! Wann?
